Chris Stirewalt of Fox News makes a good point today in commenting on Hillary Clinton's having all traces of emails erased from her server at a time when they were outstanding subpoenas. Stirewalt points out that if just one email that would have been responsive to that subpoena turns up elsewhere, Hillary may have given critics the ammunition to destroy her campaign. Imagine what would happen if there was clear proof that Hillary had destroyed evidence called for by a subpoena. She would not be prosecuted by the Obama Justice Department in all likelihood, but the uproar of a criminal act would surely hurt her political ambitions in a major way.
Why did she do it? How bad must the email she deleted have been? Were there really emails about getting cash from foreign governments for the foundation? Was Hillary doing something else nefarious? For her to take the risk that she has now gone with, it had to have been really bad.
Why did she do it? How bad must the email she deleted have been? Were there really emails about getting cash from foreign governments for the foundation? Was Hillary doing something else nefarious? For her to take the risk that she has now gone with, it had to have been really bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment